Problem 1: A plant wholesaler, who uses only botanical and no common names, except for named cultivars and trademarks has a listing Euonymus nana 'Turkestanica' The plant List (https://theplantlist.org) doesn't have a species nana. It does have nanus. There is a variety turkestanicus. Now my newbie understanding of nomenclature is that their listing indicates that Turkestanica is a named cultivar of the species E. nana. But the lack of a 'nana' on the plant list, and the closeness of the variety and the named cultivar make me think someone is being sloppy, possibly their supplier. *** Problem 2 Another one I'm seeing as a sizeable fraction (10-20%) is Eleagnus instead of Elaeagnus. I can find no support that the first is a valid synonym. This is a recurring problem: I want my website to be accurate, but I also have to deal with current availability lists that have errors, so I'm trying to figure out how to best deal with these.
Yes: if their material is correct then they would be offering the var. turkestanicus Dieck (E. nanus var. koopmannii Koehne) of Euonymus nanus M. Bieb. (E. farreri hort., E. rosmarinifolius Vis.). The var. is taller growing than the species and produces longer leaves, is the common form in cultivation. Yes: the spelling is Elaeagnus. If you are seeing "Eleagnus" being used by commercial sources such improprieties are rather prevalent among nurserymen and landscapers. A small sampling of other examples is "Hellebore" used in place of Helleborus (as in "Hellebore niger"), "Peony" instead of Paeonia (as in "Peony lactiflora"), "Eskimo Sunset" for 'Esk Sunset' (maple) and the 'Ukon' Sato-zakura being listed as "Alaskan Yellow Cherry".
For plants in the horticultural trade, you won't be often wrong if you follow the names reviewed by the Royal Horticultural Society: Help, advice & tips from the RHS on all kinds of plants / RHS Gardening
